Long before the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the Gnostics in the city of Antioch understood and taught that the evolving and self-advancing creative energies out of Source were active as the Life Principle: this they referred to as the Chrest. (See post Birthplace and Delivery of Christianity, March 2013.) This understanding, which had been taught (using the twelve major constellations for illustrative focus) became lost–intentionally lost. In those ancient pre-Christian lessons, “crucifixion” was symbolic terminology used to distinguish the event of aware-consciousness willingly taking on–or nailing itself to an identity in matter-form (energy into matter). As such, the example of crucifixion was the principal image to illustrate the Creation lessons in which life energy passes over into a self-aware entity.

The events leading up to the NT version of crucifixion, beginning with the Last Supper, strongly indicate that the story is drawn upon those pre-history lessons on Creation. Jesus personifies the Life Principle, and so in the NT version Jesus instructs both Peter (who personifies densest matter, and thus cast as the “rock” of the church), and Jesus’ favorite disciple John (who personifies light) on how to find the place where they are to have supper, “…for the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called Passover.” (Luke 22:1) Unleavened bread always symbolized pre-physical elements which are to pass over–or manifest into defined matter-forms. To find where they were to “prepare” for the meal, Jesus instructs these two apostles, “…behold, when ye enter into the city (into the energy phase leading into matter manifestation), there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water (the sign of Aquarius, the water bearer with which the ancient lessons of Creation began); follow him into the house (into the involving energy planes) where he entereth in” (Luke 22:10). The Life Principle would naturally “desire” to “…eat this pass over with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). The Life Principle, personified as Jesus, has to partake (or gather together) with the Patriarchal Principles of Creation in order to manifest out of primal energies and manifest as a self-aware matter form.

The Last Supper is presented in Christian interpretation as the preamble to what is inaccurately presented as a physical crisis, but in the ancient Creation lessons it had taught how Creation energies transform into matter form. There are, therefore, differing accounts of the happenings surrounding the alleged Last Supper, and biblical scholars have long been stymied by the numerous puzzles that these versions of Jesus’ last days present. For example, was the supper supposed to be the Jewish Passover meal for which Jesus and his disciples had gathered as Luke presents it? In John 13:1 and 19:14, however, the text is clear that the supper took place the day before Passover, with Jesus conversing and praying with his disciples. In the other Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), however, each differ from John’s account in numerous ways more than they differ from each other.

A strong clue that the Last Supper was not a historic happening rests in the fact that the earliest mention of the Last Supper was not given in the Synoptic Gospels at all, but only appeared later in letters (allegedly penned by Paul) some twenty to thirty years before the “Gospels” had been collected into a dogma-styled scriptural text. The avowed writings of Paul were drawn upon by the author primarily from ancient Creation-cosmology texts, which had used star groupings (constellations) as illustration. Elements from these ancient lessons were reworked to fit in with and smooth over the conflicting Peter-was-the-Christian-church-foundation dogma as implied in Mark, Matthew and Luke. Gnostic teachings were certainly available in the timeframe in which Paul is said to have preached, but those older teachings had focused more on the involvement of primal energies, after which each self-aware consciousness enters upon its matter-form identity. This developmental energy of the Life Principle responsible for this transformation into matter was known to the Gnostics in Antioch as the Chrest.

According to the St. John version, however, which was written in a later timeframe (c. 105-106 CE), Jesus was making ready for his crucifixion–to supposedly exit (not enter) this energy plane of matter. It is not pure coincidence, therefore, that the Last Supper and Passover are jumbled together in Christian myth: both observances are based upon the same ancient scientific teachings on how energy manifests or passes over into matter form. Both traditions intentionally recast the prehistory Creation lessons of manifestation of energy into matter by disguising the order of development. In Jewish myth, the Israelites are the personifications of the elemental energies which allegedly fled Egypt, with Egypt symbolizing the abundance out of Source from which they were to go forth to claim the “Promised Land” (energy as matter). But in the Roman version Jesus is portrayed as about to exit this temporary energy-as-matter plane.

In the St. John version of Jesus presiding over the Last Supper, it can only be properly understood as the dramatization of spirit (the Life Principle) making ready to take on its matter experience–not departing from its temporary matter form. This is why so many little details differ in the four Gospel versions. All do agree on one thing: that the twelve apostles were present at the supper. That agreement of plot is because the apostles represent the twelve patriarchal principles of Creation which are necessary for Creation to occur, and which were illustrated in the ancient teachings with the twelve major constellations. Thus Jesus, personifying the Life Principle, is portrayed as breaking unleavened bread–the symbol of the energy-substance of life–and saying, “This (energy-substance) is my body which is for you.” (This was not in the original Mark or 1 Corinthians or Luke texts, but inserted later.)

Jesus is then portrayed as taking up the cup, saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood…” (1 Corintians 11:25–written in a later 94-100 CE timeframe). Other versions have it as “This cup is a new covenant…” The “cup” is clearly drawn upon the ancient pre-Gnostic lessons which used constellations as illustrations for the lessons. The “cup” was part of the Leo lessons and was given with the associate constellation Crater–“cup”, which taught of the water/wine of life (energies which are to ferment into self-aware life), and this energy activity is the “blood”, which is the true covenant with life.

The Romanized version of Jesus’ crucifixion which then follows was fashioned upon Gnostic versions of the more ancient Creation lessons which taught of formation activity in the Creation process where energy becomes active as matter. This also explains why the “saviors” of numerous other religions were also said to have been crucified–or nailed upon the cross of physical life. These include the Persian Mithras, the Babylonian Tammuz, the Druid Hesus, the Chaldean Criri, the East Indian Krishna, and others.

When reading the Gospels, there is nothing that provides any clear indication of where or at what point Jesus became transfigured into Christ. The four storylines spun out in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John do little to set things in reasonable perspective. But in those pre-history lessons, scientific principles and spiritual understanding always reinforced each other.

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” such and such, and then such and such appeared. Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever He envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form. No trials, no errors, just zap. Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.” Or so the Creationists avow. However, they never bother themselves to clarify which of the two Creation versions they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give somewhat differing specifics! And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence. Is this imaginative account given in Genesis of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

And what about reproduction? In order for all of God’s varied and diverse material forms which He had manifested by speaking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some type of regeneration routine. And that renewal system for each and every thing that He had created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram today as DNA. Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance as to how everything became created. It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the “revealed” facts of Creation. At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people concerning the facts of his acts of Creation. And that tiny percent just happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem. Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what had gone into his creative process, like the chemical compounds and such, God did not bother himself to explain. Consequently, how He transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be utilized for their own ends. Perhaps we should question the Genesis version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet. But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago. Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in exisitence on primal Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms. To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s violent formation and simple life forms were already appearing seems a case of too much too soon. Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present well over three billion years ago–and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin–it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet. Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium. If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would develop in the primeval stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently, then at least moderately? But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet. Of course they are not needed in the Genesis tale.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life! Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed. But that did not happen either. Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code—and all life forms share this single genetic composition. To those who idolize the Bible tales, of course this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commandments.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however. According to the deciphered Sumerian texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source: from a huge planet which made at least two passes through this developing solar system. The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk. The Sumerians also referred to that rogue planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.” This information later became reworked and the basis for personifying the Babylonian god Marduk, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth. (Marduk was the source for the name Merodach in the Bible.) Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account. A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth. Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation? Or was God simply playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?